Are Fort Crockett's buildings historical?

GALVESTON — In the latest court battle over the future of Fort Crockett, one of the owners claims the Texas Historical Commission admitted decades ago that the former soldiers barracks wouldn’t qualify as historical buildings.

State Attorney General Greg Abbott sued Max Bowen Enterprises and Juan Hijo Investments last month on behalf of the commission, seeking to force improvement of the nine buildings or to impose fines to fund repairs.

Fort Crockett was a Gulf-front military reservation established in 1903 as a coastal artillery instillation of the U.S. Army. Five barracks were built in 1910. The other four were erected in the late 1930s.

In 1956, some of the structures were transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard and remained as such until 1996 when it was declared surplus. The owners purchased the property, 6.4 acres along Seawall Boulevard, on Nov. 7, 2000.

The state’s lawsuit filed Sept. 16 referenced deed restrictions, noting the buildings were to be preserved and maintained according to plans approved by the state’s preservation officer. The lawsuit claims the owners allowed the buildings to deteriorate and refused to submit a preservation plan.

Bowen, through his attorney J. Douglas Sutter, answered the state’s accusations Oct. 13, claiming he discovered that, in 1989, the commission sent a letter to the Coast Guard admitting the structures mentioned in the lawsuit didn’t qualify as historic buildings.

The reasons included modern renovations, such as the 1986 removal of the classic clay-tile roofs, construction of composition roofs, modern aluminum windows and the removal of porches, Bowen states in the counterclaim.

Bowen bolstered his counterclaim with documents from professional engineers, which found five of the buildings were a safety hazard and rehabilitation wasn’t recommended.

Rebars in the concrete of the five buildings were severely rusted and the integrity of the concrete was compromised.

“The experts found that it would pose a danger of personal injury or death, not only to the owners and their representatives but also to the public, to even be involved in any attempt to rehabilitate the structures and would be in violation of law to do so,” the counterclaim states. “Any attempt to repair the structures will pose a threat to life and workers.”

Bowen’s counterclaim says the poor quality and/or mixture of materials used in the 1900s to build the barracks caused the current conditions.

The counterclaim also claims the commission said it intended to have the property inspected, but that never occurred.

In May, Bowen reminded the commission of its intent to hire an engineer to conduct an investigation of the buildings, the counterclaim states.

“Based upon the commission’s silence as to the hiring of an engineer and its silence as to its 1989 admission that the buildings did not constitute historical buildings, one could reasonably conclude that the commission had acquiesced to the demolition of the buildings,” the counterclaim states.

Furthermore, Bowen claims he had, on two occasions, an opportunity to sell the property but couldn’t because of the state’s position that the buildings couldn’t be demolished and that millions of dollars needed to be spent rebuilding the structures to comply with governmental safety codes.

Bowen’s counterclaim states he was damaged in excess of $1 million.

On Oct. 17, Juan Hijo Investments also answered the state’s lawsuit, saying it denied the allegations and demanded proof.